FOX News accepts climate change!

Well, it took someone as shortsighted as Trump to get them to admit it, but they finally did - climate change is happening, greenhouse gases are causing it, mitigations are important, we should invest in them, and the effects of climate change may be pretty bad (like flooding.)

Of course since they are FOX News, they had to get a dig in at Obama, but that's fine. I am very happy to see science win over partisan politics even at the most republican mainstream media source out there. This is a big deal - since many conservatives get their news exclusively from conservative outlets like FOX, this will expose a lot of right-wingers to the science behind climate change.
===============================
Trump is wrong on climate change
By Oren Cass Published March 29, 2017 Fox News

Climate change is happening; the question is what to do about it. President Obama had one answer: reduce greenhouse-gas emissions aggressively.

Unfortunately, his approach was heavy on cost and light on benefit, and with yesterday’s executive order rolling back those efforts, President Trump has rightly begun the process of reversing it.

But President Trump's own response to climate change appears to be: nothing. That’s not the right answer either.

Most climate policy falls into one of two categories: There is “mitigation,” which means trying to prevent climate change by reducing greenhouse-gas emissions -- think wind farms. And then there is “adaptation,” which means dealing well with whatever change occurs -- think sea walls.

The basic problem with Obama’s mitigation-focused approach is that the overwhelming majority of future emissions will come from the developing world as it grows rapidly. U.S. policy has shown little ability to influence that trend, even when we make brave commitments to incur large costs ourselves.

We can -- and should -- invest in developing new technologies that might reduce emissions more cheaply, but that takes time, and success is not guaranteed.

. . .

If President Trump dislikes his predecessor’s approach to adaptation he should put forward an alternative. Ignoring the problem entirely is one of the few things he can do that really would make it worse.
=====================

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

Well, it took someone as shortsighted as Trump to get them to admit it, but they finally did - climate change is happening, greenhouse gases are causing it, mitigations are important, we should invest in them, and the effects of climate change may be pretty bad (like flooding.)

Of course since they are FOX News, they had to get a dig in at Obama, but that's fine. I am very happy to see science win over partisan politics even at the most republican mainstream media source out there. This is a big deal - since many conservatives get their news exclusively from conservative outlets like FOX, this will expose a lot of right-wingers to the science behind climate change.
===============================
Trump is wrong on climate change
By Oren Cass Published March 29, 2017 Fox News

Climate change is happening; the question is what to do about it. President Obama had one answer: reduce greenhouse-gas emissions aggressively.

Unfortunately, his approach was heavy on cost and light on benefit, and with yesterday’s executive order rolling back those efforts, President Trump has rightly begun the process of reversing it.

But President Trump's own response to climate change appears to be: nothing. That’s not the right answer either.

Most climate policy falls into one of two categories: There is “mitigation,” which means trying to prevent climate change by reducing greenhouse-gas emissions -- think wind farms. And then there is “adaptation,” which means dealing well with whatever change occurs -- think sea walls.

The basic problem with Obama’s mitigation-focused approach is that the overwhelming majority of future emissions will come from the developing world as it grows rapidly. U.S. policy has shown little ability to influence that trend, even when we make brave commitments to incur large costs ourselves.

We can -- and should -- invest in developing new technologies that might reduce emissions more cheaply, but that takes time, and success is not guaranteed.

. . .

If President Trump dislikes his predecessor’s approach to adaptation he should put forward an alternative. Ignoring the problem entirely is one of the few things he can do that really would make it worse.
=====================

Click to expand...

Yes, windfarms (as well as solar, hydroelectric, and nuclear) are a mechanism for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, windfarms are only viable as long as the exhorbitant federal subsidies are guaranteed. Remember also that wind does not always 'blow' and the sun is often obscured by cloud cover - but nuclear power plants have reasonably stable and dependable outputs!. BTW: (Humor) Did you know that windmills (cummulatively) can reduce the earth's rotation rate due to friction/drag? - now you know why the days seem to be getting longer!!. . . (HAHA!)

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

Yes, windfarms (as well as solar, hydroelectric, and nuclear) are a mechanism for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, windfarms are only viable as long as the exhorbitant federal subsidies are guaranteed.

Click to expand...

Yep. Renewables make up 45% of our energy subsidies; gas and oil make up 20%. Seems about right, given that renewables are more secure, kill fewer people and allow US energy independence forever.

Remember also that wind does not always 'blow' and the sun is often obscured by cloud cover

Click to expand...

True! Also remember that air conditioners are not always "on" and many devices charge their batteries at specific times.

- but nuclear power plants have reasonably stable and dependable outputs!

Click to expand...

Dunno about that. The San Onofre nuclear power plant is just down the beach from me - and my solar power system has been far more dependable than it.

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

However, windfarms are only viable as long as the exhorbitant federal subsidies are guaranteed. Remember also that wind does not always 'blow' and the sun is often obscured by cloud cover - but nuclear power plants have reasonably stable and dependable outputs!.

Click to expand...

The government subsidies for oil, coal, and nukes would buy current solar investment several times over. And that's not even counting the cost of the wars, or the risk of the weapons.

All attempts to distance the Republican Party from Trump should be called out.

The government subsidies for oil, coal, and nukes would buy current solar investment several times over. And that's not even counting the cost of the wars, or the risk of the weapons.

That undercounts the gas and oil considerably, last I checked. Who's adding the numbers?

Click to expand...

Let us also give thanks and praise for the new LED lighting technology that seems to have both arrived and caught on just a little bit too late. If only we had this technology starting in the 1940's, there would be no issue of global warming now.

I couldn't and still can't believe the people who complain something along the lines of:

And it seems to me their only real interest is dumping their remaining stock of those energy wasting Edison conceived monstrosities on an unsuspecting public. Disinformation ab0ut LED lighting at its absolute worst.

I would only agree with their assessment that CFL bulbs lose to LEDs in terms of the amount of toxic mercury from broken CFL bulbs improperly disposed of may have on the environment, particularly if they are inappropriately disposed of in landfills.

Yes, windfarms (as well as solar, hydroelectric, and nuclear) are a mechanism for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, windfarms are only viable as long as the exhorbitant federal subsidies are guaranteed. Remember also that wind does not always 'blow' and the sun is often obscured by cloud cover - but nuclear power plants have reasonably stable and dependable outputs!. BTW: (Humor) Did you know that windmills (cummulatively) can reduce the earth's rotation rate due to friction/drag? - now you know why the days seem to be getting longer!!. . . (HAHA!)

Click to expand...

Well according to Con Ed that's no longer the case. Windfarm energy is commercially viable. Further cloud cover doesn't inhibit wind power. And then there is this thing called a battery which is used to store electricity.

Well according to Con Ed that's no longer the case. Windfarm energy is commercially viable. Further cloud cover doesn't inhibit wind power. And then there is this thing called a battery which is used to store electricity.

Click to expand...

WF's and (active) solar are commercially viable . . . . as long as subsidies are continued.

BTW: Growing-up in the rural boonies (late 1950'-early 60's) with no electrical power, no running water, no inside bathrooms (we recycled Wards catalogues!), and no (fossil) fuels (other than kerosene for lighting, and few renewables: oak, and hickory - new ones sprouted every spring!) for heating and cooking - wasn't so bad (being off-the-grid? - hell, there WAS NO grid!). Being the budding scientist that I was destined to be, I designed a 6 vdc wind generator (from the old Ford truck) that also worked (well . . . . maybe not so well . . . . . AND WITH NO SUBSIDIES! . . . . so it CAN be done, I suppose). Well . . . actually, we had a passive solar heating source as well . . . . we just opened the curtains on the south side of the house in the winter . . . . and for summer cooling - opened the windows, too!

Well according to Con Ed that's no longer the case. Windfarm energy is commercially viable. Further cloud cover doesn't inhibit wind power. And then there is this thing called a battery which is used to store electricity.

Click to expand...

Joe: Can you please provide a reliable online (or other) evidential source text for your statement " Well according to Con Ed that's no longer the case. "? Any such source aliteration requires verification. Otherwise you may be only offering your opinion regarding Con Ed's. Thanks!!

Well according to Con Ed that's no longer the case. Windfarm energy is commercially viable. Further cloud cover doesn't inhibit wind power. And then there is this thing called a battery which is used to store electricity.

Click to expand...

BTW, Joe: I have been in email contact with Con Ed regarding confirmation of your statement (above). Their initial response was that although they support wind and solar energy and they are invested in them, they cannot confirm the statement that you posted regarding the commercial viability of windfarm energy. They also stated that they would like for me to provide them the Forum source for your statement. With your permission (only, of course) I will provide them a link to your Sciforms post and you can discuss it with them. Please let me know ASAP Thanks!

BTW, Joe: I have been in email contact with Con Ed regarding confirmation of your statement (above). Their initial response was that although they support wind and solar energy and they are invested in them, they cannot confirm the statement that you posted regarding the commercial viability of windfarm energy. They also stated that they would like for me to provide them the Forum source for your statement. With your permission (only, of course) I will provide them a link to your Sciforms post and you can discuss it with them. Please let me know ASAP Thanks!

I would only agree with their assessment that CFL bulbs lose to LEDs in terms of the amount of toxic mercury from broken CFL bulbs improperly disposed of may have on the environment, particularly if they are inappropriately disposed of in landfills.

Click to expand...

They also lose in cold weather performance, and the flicker as well as the wavelength profile is hard on some people.

Meanwhile: Basically, they go into landfills in my area - and the surface water is already heavily contaminated with mercury.

I noticed that as soon as the pressure was on the incandescents improved enormously, too late to avoid a ban though - and the performance of the LEDs I have purchased has been mildly disappointing: they burn out faster, provide dimmer light, and create more waste heat, than advertised. But they do work.